have for filtering of test chemicals and the second issue looking at the viral issues around mountain davidson 200 and 5 houses are be touching are backed up to the perimeter of mountain davidson so if you talk about water run off and erosion will be impacted by the removal of the cutting down of the trees has clearly more run off than the odds it as graze tons of run off and they've adapted planning the odds of the mountain mass a much lower level of run off a recent case you know the $5 million settlement forebear or for the how's that slid down the hill in mountain davidson doss or because of an accident

of a water main i am if their recreating this area watt u without a significant report to tell us what the ramifications are and injects just a few how's your talking into the tens and million dollars in liquidate those are things that should be explored so is that over. >> that's over. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i recommend against the current cannabis dispensary. >> thank you, thank you, thank y you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. thank you i'm marshall i'm a biologist on the board of sequoia audubon society i'm not going to repeat what is said about sharp park

maps and so and so, i appreciate you're great patience and stamina in hearing many of the arguments and points repeated but the public utilities commission promised that sharp park redevelopment plan would never be included in this one and i don't know why that promise was not kept why i don't know why did they make the promise because the golf course had significa significant environmental value and in the context of its location this area should be an arbitrary that is replaced for the environmental location and bio diversity will be impacted

two endangered species as we know we're in an accelerated time of destruction and elimination of species doing everything we can owe urge you to remove sharp park as many said from consideration of the eir. >> the people of san francisco the public utilities commission the board of supervisors, and the people have been environmental leaders that recognition the importance of preserving the environment we ask you not suck culp not to put the golf course without the consideration that is due that makes sense no viral sense or economic sense excerpt for private interest any question to you is when will we have the

sense to stop unnecessary habitat destruction without full consideration of species extinction like sharp park and up to each of us including i hope you'll do the right thing. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon or evening i'm karen i'm from the mira loma and a delegate from the twin peaks council for for those of you who don't know they represent about 22 neighborhood associations around mountain davidson west side of the city i have a resolution i'd like to read the important parts of that embodying be it resolved that

the rec and park department the board of supervisors, the planning commission, and the rec and park commission to remove all forested areas from mountain davidson and give management controls for the everest and for the rec and park department trained arborists and removal trees except for construction of buildings and therefore, be it resolved to all of those move to have the maintenance alternate identified for the, sir and therefore, be it resolved to prohibit all tier one and tier two the most toxic herbicides uses to insure public safety in all park areas so they claim they're less moving 16 hundred trees when i read this section of the eir it says the first to

existing trees like mountain davidson and adding the long term goal of forest management in m a-1 and two areas that compromise most of naps argues to convert those areas to a grassland notice this sounds like deformatiestation i don't how anyone p can advocate taking down trees but the herbicides use there's a preschool not a preschool but a grandmother school where in any grandchildren go they're in the neighborhood and take field trips i mean i've seen posting

of herbicides how can you have children touch or feel everything in the parks they open and do that without problems once the trees are gone their gone and what i heard he read once that 2re falls that carbon going and mental illness into the air not only the tree not there but ads 3 to i recommend anyone that hadn't gone interest you should all the trees dead people. >> you're out of time. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi commissioners, thank you for allowing me to speak the audubon society and speaking on behalf of the thousand members

we've submitted a letter i encourage you to read that letter carefully please we put a lot of thought we've been working with rec and park on the areas plan a thoughtful plan for the most part got a lot of understanding of what needs to happen to maximize and save the eco systems in the city this city is a treasure i come into a different part of the country san francisco is a treasure what is missing in our city may be able more education for folks to understand what the sdefs is between a litigate to make a statement in the gone are about bio diversity and as commissioner today you have an important opportunity and responsibility to make sure that there is a prioritization on bio

diversity with that said, there is a problem with that plan and that problem is called sharp park golf course not managed as a a natural area not blinking in a natural plan in san francisco for that matter their impacts for two species in this place in the golf course and it does not make a statement about bio diversity to sweep that under the rug and really it is a golf course with a fig leave and posing and recreation i'll ask you to consider yourselves in 25 years look at our gridlocked in the eye and say yes. i was the one that pushed that garden snake closer to extinction i as i understand

that plan they destroyed thwetld if you can't do that that's on you that's why today's decision is important pass the rest of eir as it should be and. >> next speaker. >> (calling names). >> my name is jerry risk and i'm a retired teacher tact for 34 years i don't agree with that eir whatever it is

and i want you to know i have a couple of problems and one of them is i understand from the philosophy they have about natural plants what i do have a problem with the that it seems to have to be done with everybody in our city and i don't understand why they don't make exceptions and for instance, i'm very much involved with mountain davidson my wife and i have visitors that come to stay in our house and welcome them to live with us their students and all ages come from all over japan switzerland and whatever we take them the first place they're up

to it we take you them up on mountain davidson they like the trees and will have the eucalyptus tree because some come if country's with eucalyptus trees their seeing different variations and so forth so they're right at home we love this place we we see a forest it is not only beautiful everything about it is beautiful we see a forest that is not a fire hazard it is not a fire hazard and never will be somebody must have thrown a cigarette i lived here since 1968 never seen a spark i know one thing we go into that place it is like a rain forest i

wish worry about fires i want to ask if a your bent on killing trees and 6 or 18 thousand i want you to hire mr. peter or mr. joel be mc bride i'll get their phone call and put them on the pay thing and every time you cut down a tree you ask them to check it like a human being before you say is it dead anyway, thank you. >> my name is jan risk

i'm a retired teacher with san francisco unified school district and sierra club outer leader on this issue i don't august what the sierra club hoourns lived on mountain davidson for 44 years we love to work walk in the woods to enjoy the peaceful setting back of the forests in the midst of our noisy city and introduce our children and now grandchildren to this natural area the program or nap plans to cut 6 hundred trees in the heart of mountain davidson we consulted two expert arborists to study the mountain davidson forest he peter who is the chief forester and joe

mcbride professor of urban forestry from uc berkley in the words or both of them concluded the trees on mountain davidson of good vigor that cutting 16 hundred mature trees is clear cutting that the removals will increase the pocket of winds through leaving the remaining trees sub able to breaking limbs and failing over in the words of peter the removals are are not forest management one does not manage a forest by removing the forest leading edge for habitat conversion nap proposes to convert the heart of mountain davidson

forest to scrub and grasslands those are in the words of the plan we ask you to save the money davidson forest please take the forests out of the nap control and transfer it to the rpr arborists who will care for and nurture the trees thank you. >> next speaker >> hello my name is steve i'm a residents of miralu loma we'r in favor the maintenance plan

basically, we find the forest to be wonderful and enchavrnt place and feeling this plan might actually change the atmosphere of the whole place very soulful at the moment and there's a lot of love for the eucalyptus trees which quite frankly when you look at just simply aesthetically we were looking over art books the other day of california history california native art movements like the society of fix and others and the ubiquity of the eucalyptus tree is such a motif around the indecisions arts in california that the idea of

vital phil ginsbe vilifying them - i don't want to go though the statistic of the number of trees that will be removed it is shockingly high and basically, when you look at the way people enjoy mountain davidson the forest part that is rifled in and the grassland part is simply flouted through in order to get to the forest to enjoy the wild a wilderness area and it is i don't think we want to a manicured type of scrubland to take its place thank you very much we're basically for the maintenance alternative thank you.

>> okay. >> next speaker, please. >> yeah good evening commissioners i'm ron a resident of patrick can one of the neighboring city i'm here to speak about sharp park the golf course first to let you you know, i want to see if you, you would separate the eir from the golf course in the plan i like to see a thorough job with the la gone and to give history of patricifica one from 1895 and one - 3 lagoon was one

of the first land features they came down in 1769 other 31st as a matter of fact on halloween but at any rate came down and in the pacifica they indicate in their diary a big march to the shoreline of the sea interest which is a beach the other lagoon if not preserved as a golf course that lee lagoon would be built and the third lagoon means the high la gone in 6 or seven hundred feet in the southern part of the

pacifica we have a lagoon i'll appreciate that very, very much if you guys can make a concerted effort and says that the expense and do a great job on that lagoon within that i think something utilize the convertcy for the mentor and the type of work they could be helpful in guiding that but at any rate please once again separate the eir from the golf course remodel plan and thank you very much. >> hi my name is victoria resident of pacifica since 1992 this plan maybe fine or not but contains a poison pill a sharp park course is definitely not a natural area

adding changes onto the golf course invalidated the eir this is a against the planning process and to mitigate golf changes to make the golf course survive the rep between the golf course and the lagoon wetlands is complex to be included with the other natural areas plan to the san francisco rec and park management the importance of wetlands as a home to endangered species needs more consideration than for golf here's the problem raises the height of the fairways you restrict the law gone thgoon th

will become to salty the salt intrusion b will occur as sea level rise if you approve that eir you'll permanently place the lagoon in mortal danger by creating had been tablet two close to the ocean endangered the species a you're trying to protect areas their moss more at risk the long term effects on the lagoon and resident will be disastrous the communities of the golf course are too important to be hidden within an eir please extract the renovation plan from the final eir thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon early evening i woken one block if mountain davidson park in a home i walk in the forest areas almost daily the thing that is so wonderful about the forest none has mentioned it is so dense you can't see another building or hear traffic can't hear or see cars only the greenery and forest the javpz called that been proven to say a calming up literally effect on people that's what it side to you i'm against the cutting of 16 hundred trees in mountain davidson and don't support of eir everyone has talked about the 82 plus trees fell and the

horrible release of carbons i have to say because i live a block if mountain davidson i've seen them putting on the herbicides and signs posted that is a do not apply in wet weather i've seen it apply that millions of times and their populated to stay on the while it dries they never stay on sited when is wet it is super dangerous people are walking up there. >> so i ask the commission again, please respect the will of the people not to contributed if combroernl and not certificate the eir as required

thank you. >> i provided copies of comments to the record to melanie hugh she'll provide them to the commissioners, i have a long version of citations and what the summary of table of impacts i just want to comment about well unfortunately, i'm a lawyer i have to tell you the problem (laughter) you have a big problem with a problematic eir for a bunch of projects miss marched together you can't have a problematic eir you've heard the people say sharp park is one deal the problematic eir did work the discussion of the vifrl superior alternative says

well the reason maintenance alternative is superior didn't have the habitat what does the lagoon restoration have to do with the highest point in the city of san francisco the other problems with the eir are the fact that contrary to the table 21 agitate unmitigateable impacts in at least 4 areas culture and battalion to logical shown on table 21 the maintenance alternative and the eir didn't consider the hybrid maintenance the maintenance alternative says you'll keep the distribution and

install live oak whenever i remove the tree fails or whatever you want the response to the comments also is asking you to bet on the com can you'll do at the bottom of my comments have 54 metric tons of carbon sequestration from cutting the trees one and 77 in sharp park and amortized plus one and 85 metric tons of carbon from the heavy construction well what happens you cut down the trees what happened if you don't complete the project you don't center any guarantees finally conclude by saying 3 things that the eir did not consider the drought one reason the maintenance alternative is preferred because

it didn't require water to maintain for the life of the new trees we're in a drought you might not building that looking outside we're in a drought. >> okay. >> next speaker. >> and (calling names). >> hi good afternoon, i'm a stan i live atsdz at pacifica we're truly concerned about sea level rise and the loss of our homes nothing in the either addresses it and in the last election all 89 couldn't passed the tax to increase the size of wetlands

they're one of the best way to stop the flooding into rising assess and didn't have to contend that the bay action at the same time the f eir is suggesting razor the golf course that traps the lagoon wetlands between the golf course and others rising ocean with this plan have our wetlands will shrink and disappear san francisco is considering arming with magnificent puvenlg a agency a responsible solution to protect the golf course with the existing berm and continued penalty of perjury and salt intrusion salt participants are replacing the grass other than little northwest side will cost $30 million with the arming to protect the beach the sand

need to be replaced with the cost in essence of $50 million a lot of money to protect one business a self-study cost analysis stated if you leave the wetlands alone they'll essentially be no cost future in allowed the beach and lagoon will exist by retreating natural naturally and only 4 to 5 feet levy in front of the realistic homes those homes will be better protected than by an armed wall sfpd will talks about protecting the wetlands this can be scientifically shown to be stripg them your preserving a golf course and destroying a eco system i'm being dramatic but

everything can be shown to be scientifically proved i've lived there 2 two years and wachld that lagoon disappear and a healthy lagoon will not only impact the golf course blue realistic infrastructure and businesses in the area so i strongly, strongly urge out to please, please pull this thing in the f eir and do that right thank you. >> hello my name is frank in my association with the natural areas policeman began when i volunteered to plant plants on billy goat hill 20 volunteers and dedicate park

employees spent half a day planting dozens of native plants we felt good about that, however, within 6 months many of the plants had begun to die within a year seems like all were overtaken by the other vegetation at the time owe wrote it off and participated in the second planting a software firm put in a lot of plants the result was the same equip for two oak trees that i thrived over that period everything else died for a plan to be successful a metabolism of representation and a mechanism for available bans my experience i looked for and found little almost all the projects recommend planting native plan

but what you wouldn't finds restoration plant will be revisit to determine mortality of the species verify the establishment of feed banks and look at it guidance for future planting simply this on billy goat more life vegetation a lot of people talked about the forecast i have problems i'm in support of maintenance alternative and the one for one replacement is pie in the sky it assumes zero mortality because of this kind of program have performance statements as much as replacement trees will be recame down over 5 and 10 years integrals and this is such after 10 years one herbicides and

pesticides are dangerous some more so are dangerous can't apply the chemicals to dangerous they require special protective clooekt this is in crack to kids and cats and births and other wildlife after the specialist left the area in short the plans lacks the accountability i don't see how you can certificate this document until accountable standards or excluded to insure that pursuant use of taxpayers resources thank you. >> thank you and. >> next speaker, please. >> calling -

>> i'm hi doctor victor as i said in the overflow room and left hand to all the comments i noticed that in general those who support the natural areas program tend to be government employees, a.m. r academia or political connected nonprofit many oppose tends to be long term san francisco resident like myself people that use the parks everyday and walk amongst the trees those are the people that can't afford to lose a day earns the bathroom, is no popular with the common san franciscan about a year and a half ago my dog go into the round up that was freshmen separate in glen

park and consecutively i'm against the use of round up on our public land and opted to the eir as it is currently written it does still you know let those things be used and if you have to approve it please do the maintenance option instead mr. and mrs. please stop that destruction of trees and please stop spraying in the name of nature area a study by the stanford university conducted concluded that grasslands are doomed in the warming trends they hope to find that grasslands can safe us sequester the only answer to global warming to reducing the emissions and planting for trees

in a plan to replace carbon sequestering trees what shrubs and california oaks to a certain extent this is a species dying off in california it is a different environment than the 1800s please don't pass that plan thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is paul i'm a president of the pacifica historic of historical society i want to address the sharp park question from a historical perspective i'll leave the science that is discussed for many years to

others in 1929 when the san francisco city father's were looking for someone to build the new golf course on the coast of the san mateo couldn't they hired the greatest living golf architect in the world alastair was in the process of revolutionizing the way the game was played and now considered one of the most influential architect in the history of the game the course he designed agency sharp park is an absolute jewel a showcase of his touches the magnificent sightlines of horizons the wide fairways and rolling hills like all mckenzie courses that offers a game

enjoyable so for the average player challenging for more talented golfer this remember is a municipal course open to all players not a pampered private country club course for over 80 years sharp park has been the most democrat graphically diversity if i had recreational opportunities in the bay area sharp park is now in the best shape i've seen it in years the work having been done on the course is successful and i might add that the frogs are thriving. >> mckenzie genus is for equivalent than ever we congratulate the city. the historic national treasure and encourage you not to

separate sharp park from the natural resources management plan thank you >> okay. i'll say is good evening laura paw my name is tim i'm a homeowner up on mountain davidson in fact, my property line touches the natural areas program part of mountain i'm very concerned of the cutting of the trees up on mountain davidson and urge you to go the route of the maintenance option while other cities are planting thousands and thousands of trees all over the world our city choose to cut them down to try to bring down the mountain prespanish i think we can't go back the trees form like many

others in the audience have said that is a recess pies from city knowledge even if you're in the in the forest you look at up at the cross and the trees it is calming. >> i want to bring up that nap has been less than transparent they've not reached out to the citizens up on mountain davidson what they want to do with the forest and with our new president we'll be spending a lot of money on cutting down trees one agency rec and park that is cutting trees down

another agency spending a lot of money to plant trees what's wrong with that picture not good to rush into judgment you're probably under a lot of pressure to pass that i want to say to you what looks good at the moment and all the experts i've been here since 1 o'clock pass this pass this what will the people in 20 or thirty years what were they thinking coming out u cutting down trees to plant shrubs back to the 1950s the double deckerer we had experts saving this is the best thing since bread this is the total sloth under urban rule

those railroad excellent ideas at the time and pushed by a lot of people but look what they did to whole community and vic arena homes torn down for urban rule i ask you think he go into our cells and minds is this 9 right thing to do thank you. >> good evening, commissioners i'm rudolph for the record live in coal valley and go the internal of the belt i'm not a government employee not employed by and nonprofit but urge you to vote to certify the eir and approve that plan i believe that people have a sincere love of in each, however, you've heard

obligations that the natural program is jen phonetic or racist well, i'm an immigrant i love the wildlife in california i understand the non-native species have here eucalyptus and blackberry will not be - we don't have to ignore our native areas chugging that didn't comply i hope you'll reject that hyperbole this is managed to the rec and park test management program that has a regular refuse with the extensive public input not to manage that 240 the management plan or the eir itself very little san francisco

original landscape has thrived in the state and maybe 3 percent of city still retains representation of the bay area that makes that a diversity hot spot 20 years ago the city began the approach to preserve and restore those for san franciscans to experience the fall environments in the city that management plan is very well-thought-out and it is for school children's and all the vs. that work in the restoration project i urge you to approve the management plan and thank you for all the time you've spent here today. >> mc-3 my name is matt

i think i have a perspective that might be laboratory unique i've spent hundred and hundreds of hours the last 6 years of my working with the nap and the urban forestry department and i agree with the last speaker this is not a clear-cut issue of you know native good non-native bad and this is isn't a radical mission to x mat all the trees many trees will be left for you to enjoy i'd like to there that there are a lot of species on mount davidson less chars masklike the

wildflowers you may see for 3 months out of year that are persisted and the most threatened and that we we knew about them more there is more common ground we appreciate nature i think more outreach and thoses those places will be used as an educational space there's a lot of passion but they'll remain open as multi use areas i would say that a lot of the trees on mount davidson are old they have lifespan of around one and 20 years and these trees are aging impacted by drought and disease

and they didn't receive maintenance as they were growing so they're not very structurally sound they're on trails which put people realistic i hope you tree lovers don't go up there they - whether or when windy roots not structurally sound i had a lot of time working in the presidio that was very hideous when that happened removed hundreds of healthy trees and replaced them with plant it took ifd thousand plants i was able to monitor what was there and keep statistics over what happens ether time it is successful and mammals use that

thank you. i've been here for 5 hours i took the day off work we all care thank you. >> hi there i'm rachel and i first became aware of the plan on bernal hill a student at university of california, san francisco any gut reaction because the hyperbole about how it will curtail access for folks with dogs i was directed by professors at the university of san francisco to the rec and park for internship and respected to rec and park and found that the plan is modest and works the edges to try to preserve what we continue to have in terms of bio diversity and the department engaged me as a young person in the commercial

dog walking community and actually had me do my research project on engaging the dog-walkers within the most contiguous places for dog walking he it thankless work but i'm standing up for 2 1/2 years i walked dogs i vufk thought that should be my lives work in allergy us and became a staff member and 5 years served the land despite the deep concerns from the compassionate people the department worked well, that the department of the environment the san francisco puc nonprofit last week audubon

and the california native plant society and group the department is trying hard to get this right. i hope you move that forward understanding that project specific public process can continue to happen as these plans move forward so this big picture eir provides much needed guidance and xrienz for the department and still allows for us to move individual projects like mount davidson that involves the community process that's one of the nice things this is not an end stop but give us a nice a framework and something to look at it and take into consideration with each action and i'll say in my time working for the department i worked with a program very dedicated to reducing reflex with pesticides to in protecting

trees with the ones not native and protecting the land in general, i hope you'll moved this plan thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners. i'm dennis the president of san francisco since so 50 with the forest think mount davidson was 70-year-old that forest in mount davidson area has not been a nature area since 1980 and try to turn that it probation officer a scrub lands i put it into the category to tear down hetch hetchy dam i can't believe our seriously going to adapt that i'm against the plan always a speaker said a massive peshd

pesticides goes into the ground water their mixing with the hetch hetchy water as for the golf course i advocate no changes at all for the golf course the frogs are thriving the people that tried to close the golf course couldn't prove that was impacting the frogs or snakes necessary talk about the snakes circled by moeers i don't believe they've documented that the only make i've seen added the park was a hawk in the just a i couldn't identify it as a san francisco garden snake and cutting you down 16 thousand trees at sharp park a waste of money adjacent to that park several square miles of scrub land so if you cut down the

effort our interesting the bio diversity you can look up that and if 90 san francisco has money to cut down the trees go to the other parks there or where there are dangerous trees one fell on a woman and sfta san francisco will pay a lot of money for that and thinning out the trees that are a threat for people that walk there, there at stern road several trees will take somebody out to spend a lot of monies to come out u cut down a forest is ridiculous i hope you consider the management alternative and replace those with live oaks the grow at stern grief amongst the eucalyptus

trees. >> thank you, thank you. >> hi i've lived in san francisco for 20 years commissioners, i urge you to adopt the eir and approve the natural resources management plan without delay it helps the landscapers and promotes soil and restore resiliency to climatic change and advocacy for viral justice and approaches to resource management the plan is long over due it lags hidden the recognizing and protecting natural resources the city is behind the times the usda has a

policy in 1965 the department of interior in 1967 over the past 5 decades having objectives have evolved like climatic change and environmental justice frankly our neighbors the presidio trust and california state parks have been roebs and protecting critical natural resources for many years time for the office of the small business commission to step up it is time for the city government to stop shirking the responsibilities and pitch in like the neighbors for years now your opportunity commissioners to protect our environment demonstrate responsible viral leadership by adapting the eir and approving the plan

>> good evening i'm nancy former member of the rec and park advisory committee and for 9 years educate i came today to ask to please approve the maintenance alternative for the natural areas management plan in the eir viral sensitive and superior i should say tomorrow i would like to you have request the general manager of rec and park department mr. ginsburg to prepare for your consideration a document that officially transfers the management and maintenance of the forest currently in the natural bathroom, to the jurisdiction of the depth of urban forestry division that is on the - under naps control in the prior tilsz

for maintenance because in their non-native indeed paupgs f states the long-term goal for the urban forest management in certain areas to slowly convert those areas from forest to native scrub grasslands the plan calls for 34 hundred trees to be removed and another 15 thousand trees to be removed from the sharp park nap wants the land having nap in charge of the forest not in the interest of preserving that efforts in nap gets money to chop down 18 thousand trees the department can invest and preserving our beautiful forest by the adequately funding the upper market to do the job in 1998 the

first nap plan was proposed various parks were offended to be part of brand new program that then i building the city's forests were considered to be part of nature so they were included in nap now nap as rejected caring for the non-native trees time to resign to the professional employees that want to keep the trees as part of city's companion and how to keep them healthy you've heard testimony that our forests are not properly maintained by nap now that you know that you have the responsibility for taking the appropriate corrective action to insure the work is properly managed by the flu qualified urban forestry division be proactive and protect our trees thank you, mr.

frankie support him had the same experience of dead plants in the park thank you very much. >> good evening denise a native san franciscan i've golden on mount davidson for 4 decades a volunteer for the natural resources division in glen canyon and other resource areas around the city i urge you to support the eir and the enar ramp as is because we can trust that rec and park department has vested the plan we need to understand that the

stance see eucalyptus trees are not what person they've been stressed by drought because of the draulth they've slung even the shallow roots have slung back in heavy wind trees can easily topple and actually slide down the hill okay. so unhealthy trees should be removed please consider the urban forest council and the experts recently found that there is a dye back amongst the trees all trees need to be managed but especially now so i urge you to support the eir and to help money to starts

removing unhealthy trees neighbors and i live in fear the huge fire those are liability risk the city needs to address with our help thanks. >> next speaker >> i think i forgot any card my name is anastasia and, of course, i want to solve the problem not natural - i wanted that i wanted out i live in the natural areas this is not natural i know that is not going to happen okay. but you heard enough the eir is not - by in

any stretch of the mention why talk about one to within tree remove if not in the plan you discuss it while you discussing one to one removal not to be found why the administration is underestimated not accurate not whatever it escapes me, please do not certificate if you certificate it please do not approve the project please approve the maintenance and - within the gentleman if r f d wants to know what they're doing i know i was there on november 2nd they were cutting the sprut of the eucalyptus tree that was in 2007 for one reason

or another and putting herbicides on it i learned about this i was working from the set city on mount davidson and pesticides are there their toxic now about the responsibility you've heard please don't use that is more responsible thing it should be forbidden and don't make mistake many plan is not ambassador forest maintenance about replacement of forested areas for the scrub and grass 82 percent - this blessed california - not in danger so you have to cut one thousand trees over there there are so many things people have assessing not true like the

eucalyptus is 3 to 5 hundred years not one hundred years now on mountain davidson how many of the unhealthy trees like this same natural areas straight how many of you are - like if their unhealthy probably thank you very much for natural area program thank you very much. >> thank you commissioners thank you for grounded patience and endurance i worked for you a long time ago i working closely with the natural areas program i have seen the staff work miracles in so many areas but i

am a pacifica i strongly outburst to this project i respect request you remove it from the eir golf course i'm sure you understand the golf course is not a natural area natural areas theoretically don't include manicured lawns do you have a different definition from a golf course than a manicured lawn you must theoretically oppose the entire eir you've heard about the redesign not to be included in the natural areas plan you've heard the quote should changes

to the sharp park course be proposed they'll under go a separate regulatory review including ceqa piling dirt on top of the green not the green but the fairways in order to raise them is definitely a new addition to the f eir today you're looking at at a proposal to raise the golf course and lock the lagoon closer to the ocean where red-legged frogs can't live in salty water and 20 years for in plan if so not enough if you lock that lagoon and in refuse it to migrate we've lost our frogs and snakes local experts in benign

and botany have stayed quote habitat enhancement by the rec and park in their preferred 18 hole alternative is inadequate to allow the recovery of the san francisco garden snakes and red-legged frogs at the site and it is set up to fail with climatic change and sea level rise i repeat golf course is not a natural area if you choose to include the golf course resign as part of eir and approve that eir your choosing lagoon and extinction of the populations again, thank you for your tolerance and endurance. >> commissioners my name is paul i'm a nature and resident of san

francisco evolution continues not statistic and probably one of the concedes we can control things i suspect that nature and evolution are forces that is a conceit we can control that imagine from the idea we can postpone evolution in the challenge of plants and extend that to the previous years go about 8 thousand years when it is ice age was started to reseed sitting around to reviewing the eir and somebody trying to say we have to stop here this we'll allow those plants to exist those plants have to go we're

trying to. that is silly and awkward that is true that we're working with forces here and nature we've not resolved them i oppose obviously the eir but if it is necessary to certify that i ask you to adopt the maintenance alternative as a number of people have done described in the eir as the environmentally superior alternative to at least use of herbicides and the less removal of trees e , etc., etc. one hundred and two native tests were dead in last year's all of a sudden oak deaths since 1995

nature and non-nature trees will be important in the future especially in the urban forests. >> consideration will need to be of considerations will need took species neutral we're in at times shrubs and every piece of grass important let's not destroy them before they're ready thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> and is there any additional public comment? >> you're up. >> you might want to try

speaking into the - >> hello is that better okay. wonderful okay myself a mary i don't know why you didn't have any card by the way, i submitted one i have been a resident in the sherwood forest mount davidson and afterward that is a home that we brought our two sons to live with us from the hospitals and they grew up and loved their homes and loved being in the neighborhoods from the start we appreciate the forest study we moved to daily wood and across from us was covered with trees across from you say that was fabulous and

wonderful i thought that was in heaven never until the strong winds of 1982, 83-d we have concerns of the at all trees across the street from us they were 80, one hundred feet tall through the storms of january 82, 83 my husband opened the door and my second son was an infant in the rear seat one of the trees from across the street from the storm came crashing down and knocked down the power lines i was so flabbergasted and grateful that i had not lost half any family that day and a second incident we'll have problems from this he support

the eir definitely but for the purposes of maintaining watching out for the unhealthy trees for keeping the place safe and this is something should have been done years and years ago and also another incident happened was in october right across the street from our neighbor's house a cypress tree came stumping down and the power lines went down none can explain this the city only took away the tree, of course, and so we're not against the trees it is just necessary need to be maintained right now recently a lot of the trees are unhealthy having gone through a lot of lack of rain

they very - and they're nothing like the ones in australia i understand they're short and our trees don't reach the ground their dangerous. >> you're out of time. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment. >> not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> and jonas remind of us action we will take. >> surely commissioner president there will be two acts the first will be taken been the planning commission and the sec about the to certify the eir and the second action by the rec

and park to adopt the plan and okay. so go. >> it has to happen concerning so the planning commission deliberate and on the environmental impact report and allow the rec and park to do the same for the plan okay. >> thank you. >> commissioner hillis best part thank you and thank you for your public comment obviously people are passion about their parks we deal with the built in environment that is educational for us i want to make one clarification something we grapple with with the eir versus the policy documents and the policies of natural areas the eir is here to to the

policymakers in this case the rec and park commission adopting or changing out e all the natural areas our job so make sure the document looks the impacts and it comprehensively we're looking to rec and park to set the policies on the eir a couple of questions i'm sure for planning department staff or rec and park staff can someone explain the sharp park the reason why we're doing a project level eir for the sharp park changes in a program level eir we've seen this in other areas but maybe clarify to us why this is happening in this case. >> i'm going to turn it over to don to talk about how anymore specifically prohibit in the documents it's been a long hearing and passionate voices i

think want to be clear we're talking about the habitat restoration on an existing golf course not doing a golf course but this has been planned in consultation with the u.s. fish and wildlife and intents and purposes to help the red-legged frog and snake atheist i'm going to turn it over to dawn. >> as stayed the sharp park before you is not a golf course development a restoration project that has been contemplated in with only form or another since so 92 that saves a lot of restoration at sharp park since 2006 the rec and park department decided to

actually pursue a more robust restoration project that was than was initially contemplated in 2006 at lagoon and the action was needed in coordination with the regulatory agencies we developed that started as a pragmatic project like in the eir was more specifically it and developed to to thirty percent drawings to seek. >> permit necessary to conduct this restoration having completed that work that made tremendous sense the goals were relayed to the program goals to wrap the park into the eir rather than to pursue i'm not sure what mosaic accomplished but by separating it at this point they were identical and

came out of the praveng eir make sense to include that that more robust habitat restoration project included additional habitat between the stable pond that habitat necessary it's a in a domino effect causes a invbltd impact the golf course had to be analyzed per ceqa for impacts and had to explore not causing a historic impact that's all according to ceqa being drive by by the restoration the golf course remodeling has an impact on the golf course and also in addition it relates to the errata submitted dredging

has been a part of restoration project to help us to maintain open water habitat within this and to say complete project description couldn't say we're drudging cubit feet and didn't know where it will go it identifies the location for the replacement of those soils the errata submitted to you this morning makes many more clear 4 co-equal potential uses material or i should say material to be dredged the primary use for actually creation of up land habitat that could be disposed or used on the golf course assuming all the

uses not trig an additional impact and the soil itself was of a quality that made 2 appropriate for the user i think i want to refer to and help to try to clear up some of the miss existence that occurred the department has made a consistent commitment to insure that golf course renovation go through a review process required by ceqa that project doesn't exist yet the golf course drawings included as part of ceqa document for the purposes of demonstrating the existing conditions and the fact pass restoration project that occurs within the context of a golf course to show f on the errata map shows the rifle range and also the green waste facility the first map in the eir didn't

include that visible detail and it was confusing we've specified multiple used for the soil and you know done our best to clear up i think a persist miss understanding. >> not necessarily in the eir question but that project has funding autopsy the recreation project no. >> okay. so i mean, there's a lot of process still needed in and that - i didn't understand some of the public comment people were asking to take that out of eir. >> he it's not in the eir but. >> but the fact we analyze it and certificate it gives us the built for the rec and park to do the project and do one of the alternatives and reduce that the

maintenance alternatives in the project taking it out of the eir didn't help anyone that ties the hands with the rec and park commission to continue on with the status quo. >> commissioner hillis dave i want to make a few clarifications rec and park provided a good overview why they included the sharp park as part of project i thought to clarify the different roles planning department acting as the lead agency evaluates the project as it is promote by rec and park and we had as you can see from the there's a lot of design work that went into the project and had enough information to be be able to analyze the project at a project level that's why sharp park recreation is analyzed at a project level versus the rest more pragmatic and to the

pragmatic we heard a lot of testimony about mount davidson as that project move forward given a project level eir and funding becomes available and more specific project at the level maybe with sharp park what i mean what's the environmental process with the rec and park kind of planning community involvement is to that moving forward. >> for sure begin with the planning department process once rec and park has one of the pragmatic projects more clearly extended they will come to planning and we will evaluated their project and numerous with ceqa look to the either to so whether or not the project has been fully analyzed if it has then the project can go forward if it not been fully analyzed

and found additional issues then additional information will be required. >> okay. >> commissioners les can rec and park department so typically for our capital projects there is no current funding for either the rooms of the urban forest or for the tree 39 i'm aware of but a typical process for one of the praveng projects for the identification of funding we will have a tree assessment so an or not comes out and assesses the trees and gives us their opinions which trees will be removed and community meetings we will be back in front of the rec and park department for approval of the concept plans as well as potentially depending on the funding amount the approval of the contract and so there's

quite a bit of progress that will happen as parts of one of those renovation and capital projects. >> thank you there was a question of the use of trails i know the plan has restoring trails and eliminating some but there are a couple of commenters that said they're a policy you utilizing areas of the park that is off trail is that changing as a result of the natural plans seeing that in the eir. >> but kind of going off the trails i mean some folks mentioned now that is kind of disallowed has there been a change. >> i think it is good land management to encourage people to stay on trails, of course, people wander off all the time that is standard if federal, state, and local and open spaces that you know when our trying to

preserve natural environment you encourage people to go on trail that is generally speaking has been our policy for a long time and continues to be the case. >> for the existing policy now. >> it is kind of off people walking. >> again, we're trying to bring people to recreation and enjoy those places in a you know responsible manner. >> okay. then the one to one tree replacement issue that came up that is in the eir and analyzed the - there were discussed about. >> it is in the eir on page 92 of the description so it is part of project description that has been property by rec and park all right. thank you. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> i like to perhaps

laboratory to the comment that commissioner hillis made and get to the bottom why there is so much opposition to include the sharp park into the discussion i know bits and pieces many years ago this plan was in front of us, however, in the scoping of the eir that was to be constituent and studied with alternatives in a separate manner and 4 person that are engaged and many people speaking to that tell the court matter a disappointment because no alternatives are being discussed it is formulated in a manner that deals with restoration or protection of natural areas that little big disappointment the robust discussion for an ian alternatives are basically going

under the table i emphasize to my own big disappointment the nature of eirs since the early 70s has greatly changes and each time we have seven years between the scoping of the eir in front of us the disappointment for those people that are involuntarily actively active since the early 70s a disappointments of what we're not doing or not do for other reasons is bigger and bigger that's the severity of the criticism of what we've potentially overlooking today i'm concerned and a little bit more from the 70 thinking of eirs and have tried to maintain that perspective i've concerned

about not giving in particular area more attention why are rerushing it i don't know the background if we discussed that in a program was it with the commission perhaps months ago more up to speed i'm concerned we're looking it today as an inclusive part as a robust and stronger eir. >> and waiting to be convinced otherwise go ahead. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> several things popped up during the public comment and the materials were handed in today, the first one is the definition of bio diversity and people kept on questioning that whether or not that relates to the eir and the project itself staff any comment on that.

>> hi yes jessica planning department staff we did do are is a grossy glossary i don't have imagine to say think outside the box that topic. >> rec and park. >> thank you les can rec and park department i think that is important to think about you can talk about bio diversity as a overall number of species but really 72 hours not fair inform compare an endisagreed species around the landscapes whether you're talking about bio diversity the indicators of bio diversities are the species limit in their range like the

mission blue butterfly they become more important about the bio diversity they might be small in population and go extinct quibble but more the sensitive plant and mammal species to some that are more ubiquitous is not really comparing apples and oranges like when you talk about bio e bicycle in the scientific community you're talking about native species and putting more emphasis on those species. >> i guess another question along the lines of what commissioner moore was talking about in terms of sharp park mr. ginsburg there is not a orders

to do something in the department of finish and game. >> i don't think that is exactly rights maybe you want to talk about the quote/unquote alternatives. >> keep it the way it is. >> yeah. keep it the way it is option this is the whole purpose of the exercise bay that is important for people to understand the context sharp with 4 hundred acres the golf is one hundred three hundred acres and some it of it is extremely rich frankly habitat resources between two major regions a creek there was mission blue butterfly habitat rich habitat as sharp one of the reasons frankly the potential tree removals a lot of sharp is in an unaccessible canyon there

is tree ethiopian that is necessary there the project that we've been seeking there our primary focus it habitat restoration yes, we want to balance a reservation amenity but the mission of plan and an important mission of department is to conserve natural resources and preserve habitat that project in consultation with other agencies is an ambitious will be one of the most ambitious projects this department has taken on and could off and on be a game-changer for the california red-legged frog so maybe staff and mr. ginsburg trying to look at those excluded the sharp partitioning is problematic eir it is included

this is a. >> so in 2009 noticed the preparation and initial study was prepared that's where the notice of preparation the golf course was not included in the project between 2009 and august 2011 the draft eir was heals e releases that's when we analyzed the project has not changed since 2011 other than the errata i want to point out the alternatives that were analyzed we analyzed project level alternatives for sharp park. >> okay. maybe while you're up a couple of other things within the major issues i got out of document from the forest alliance they're claiming the calculations for the carbon

sequestration is erroneous from what they submitting comment on that. >> the green house analyze was not bans completely on quantify analysis the primary significance determination was bans a qualify active with the consistency of the green house gas emissions reduction strategy an approach the city used consistently on all the environmental documents the green house gas emissions from the plans based on that quantify assessment of compliance with regulations that are reduced g h g bans the comments on the initial studies their perfectly requesting the analyze the sir, has an analysis bans comments on the draft eir critiquing that analysis the response to comments included an updated

quantitative analysis the updated analysis in the response to comments was based on methods to quantitative based on protocols including do department an energy and others assuming that the comments submitted on the green house analyze your heard and assuming that those comments represent those of an expert at best what you have a disagreement amongst the experts doesn't make the draft eir inadequate throughout

this the department has made efforts to address the comments related to green house gas emissions a one other question we've already talked about the herbicides i completely am in argument with the herbicides their thank you, everybody, running off so the methods by which of the herbicides are applied are based on the guided by the im.

>> read like did statutes behind second is people focused; right? focused on the use of environment by people in the maintenance of the environment for mankind and this program is

about

>> i also i am proud of the eir document. i think it's comprehensive. it meets the criteria of transparency and full information. i do have a question for the parts department staff and that's about the use of herbicides and pesticides. so what is an ipm

program the and i also had a question about the implementation of application of chemicals. the training that the workers undergo before they can do it and who exactly make the decision to apply to michael's and what training do they have? what is the chain of command and quality control after application? >> you >> yes. riso wayne recreation department and [inaudible] department of environment is here today. he oversees the idm program for the department of the environment. so there were a lot of questions in there. let me see if i enter them all. you will let me know >> such a recurring question.

>> absolutely. integrated pest management or ipm is a decision-making process by which you evaluate past problems and you look for the least toxic alternatives. that's a guiding principle that we all in san francisco should be very proud of,, the fact that many years ago but by the department of the environment the adopted an ipm ordinance where it's very transparent to the amount of herbicides we use. we greatly greatly reduced the amount of chemical usage in our park lands since the adoption of this frankly award-winning program. so that's kind of ipm in a nutshell. on the implementation side of things on the reparation and part department, we use over sides herbicides when there's no other options that are feasible to address the problem and to meet the land management objectives. keeping in mind that the people of san francisco are not only looking

to us to protect biodiversity but they want of good ballfields to play on and softball pitches and lawns and everything else. there's a variety of different land use objectives that we as a land managers need to think about. in the process we go through first and foremost, can this-the first is this pest really a problem? is it really going to spread? is going to really be an impact to the biodiversity or to the playing field. if the answer is, yes, the next question is, what kind of alternatives do we have to address it? we use hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours every year addressing weeds grow our park system. so a lot of it is done manually. occasionally, it's done with mechanics or equipment. in very few instances, we do rely on herbicides. i do want to kind

of give you a little more on how these herbicides are pride in our lands because there's a lot of comments saying acid spraying >> children. >> yes. children. the way these herbicides are applied if we get down that road that is the only method of treatment among most of the times he herbicides are applied with what is called a cut and drop treatment that is you can't boast of the plan and you use my kids always had these [inaudible] they're kind of like liquid comes out like a shoe polish container. filled not with 100% chemical but watered down chemicals. you are cutting something that might be that big and putting some herbicide on it. that is the lion share of what we do. sometimes we do use backpack sprayers and that is the staff walking around and treating

individual plants throughout a big landscape. chris geiger can speak to this more, but in the last in these first three quarters of 2016 in the natural areas, there were 2.7 courts of active ingredients used on 1100 acres of land. so that comes to be .04 ounces per acre. very very very small amounts and as i said before, we are very proud of the fact we reduced our usage by over 91%. chris, you can probably add to this and i hopefully i answer most of your questions. >> thank you. chris geiger department of the environment and i coordinate the pest management program. i been here for 13 years doing this that

we're very proud of this program. recent data good job of describing ipm is always above described not on an elevator. like to add-without objection >>[laughing] anywhere for that matter. i like to add first of all what she said was correct but the amount used in the past year. it's pretty menacing smile if you consider how much land is being treated and we have a very good job with rec and park landscape meant maintenance staff over the years and allowed that is revolves around our training program. i think you asked what training.. something about a dozen trainings per year.. training events including a big springtime training. all the gardeners on a monthly meetings of the ipm program which includes half. were doing these things and our objective is to stay in front of what's available to reduce hazards and risk. this is it's part of

precautionary principle that we are required to do is called alternatives analysis to not just do with legal or even what is safe but what is the safest alternative that still gets the job done and one of the alternatives is not doing it all . so the list it's also worth pointing out as far as the kind of temples that are used on state properties, this is a constantly manage list of approved products. everything is prescreened to we have our own pathological review. it's another level regulation to we our own regulatory system that layers on top of the state and federal pesticide regulations. so we are very proud of that and we are always trying to reduce whenever we can but we have we know there are some situations when we need these tools. there's no other alternative. i'm not sure i covered all your questions. >> thank you

>> commissioner moore >> as a management plan and as a programmatically eir it is worth our while to get numbers. we have a lot of people talk about mount davidson, mcclaren park and 8032 areas which comprise about 2300 acres we need to look at the management area within the larger acreage of those 32 sites. we need to look at the existing trees and the numbers of trees which will be affected over a 20 year time frame. that's a very [inaudible] approaches are most like doing structural engineering but not doing the whole structure in one day. so this is perhaps very simplistic and i.e. intentionally kept the one size which is a special discussion out of the thing.of

which at the end of 20 years about 3450 would be removed. that means about all this linear mathematics. nothing else. in means about 174 four trees per year over the entire area of 32 areas. it's not going to be like picking 10 trees out of those 20 areas but if you break it down and unfortunately don't have any flow charts or graphics with particularly layout of the zine over time. i think people would feel significantly more comfortable because the management areas of invasive trees within the larger park acreage of those parks where it

occurs are far far [inaudible] smaller parks they're not affected at all. see you can read across on the summary charts and it does not look haphazard or finger in the wind at all. it looks like a very scientific-like a very deep we studied piece of work and the question is, there's a leap of faith and there is trust. since whenever you move into scientist doing these kinds of things, it gets quite difficult because i have to at least speak for myself, i am [inaudible] in listening but i'm inexperienced in fully getting to the depths of all findings. it's the best and most honest way about to describe my expertise here. i'm quite quite capable of putting one to one together. i can use enough judgment to judge on an eir and i believe that what is in front

of us has all the substance of what is necessary to support the plan and again i'm bracketing out one area which is too complex and particularly because it's not joining the larger city proper it's in san mateo, further away. in light of that, if you have to create a cover exhibition for all areas with an equal level of attention, i believe that is been achieved. if, over time or six-month updates could be developed if, over time there would be illustrations of where interventions would be, to what extent in what particular areas of the park you could put on a screen would be able to see if that would be wonderful. >> commercial trademark water minus were focusing on the eir. >> i'm trying to figure out i do believe as i said and i preface my comment would also

maybe it's a leap of faith and i think it's ultimately building trust. this type of an undertaking and we are plenty of added up evidence of people being concerned about what would happen. where they live or what is the history of their being in owns. all it means i think in order for this particular eir to really be as effective as it needs to be we need to at least be allowed to raise those kinds of questions because we need to bridge what we decide today the next 20 years when this is going to happen. so that are my comments on it. >> thank you. it appears there's no further comments. call the question >> no further comment commissioners this emotion that has been seconded to approve - excuse me - me environmental impact report on a motion commissioner hillis aye johnson aye koppel aye mell other skype muscat richards aye fong got so

moved that motion passes 6-1 with commissioner moore voting against. i leave it to the recreation department >> we could ask use the planning commission if they want to run. i don't know how long we have a lot of questions ? a lot of them have been asked. let me start with commissioner-should we proceed and with commissioner low. >> just a follow-up on commissioner moore's statement it staff can also confirm the calculation on the trees. were not clearing trees. how many-we've heard 18,000 days, 3400 trees. can staff comment on the forest management? >> commissioner, i can start and if anybody else wants to kind of jump in. commissioner moore was corrected enough to look at this in different sides and i think mount davidson was

the product of much discussion today. so let me just kind of flip up there if i can find it quickly. at mount davidson, the proposal calls for a total of 1600 trees over a 20 year period. 9400 of them would remain. that is-that is what the plan would also be allow. other specific sites that came up. i think glen canyon if i can find it. glen canyon, 5880 trees. the plan discusses the removal over a 20 year period of 120. i do one or we emphasize the 121 the planting >> that was my next question. can i-we are not removing them

>> correct. >> we are doing a one-to-one removal >> removing and replacing and doing a lot of other good habitat. removing mature trees and planting trees that need to grow but you've heard a lot a lot of land management agencies [inaudible] the presidio needs to be regional parks. just to name a few. there is aging and it he spoke from his expense [inaudible] there's not a land management agency that is an actively manage and maintain its urban forest. it's critical. >> weathers opportunity, would we be looking to 42-21 replacement? >> the urban speed forced to counsel recommended a more aggressive approach but i think the plan says 121 which is the minimum we would do. it's also resource dependent and some of it is i think has some depends on the environmental conditions of a particular site but overall the departments-we operate with a